August 6, 2018
A Philadelphia jury recently rendered a defense verdict in favor of a McGivney, Kluger & Cook, P.C. client, a regional supermarket chain. Peter Kennedy, a Partner in the firm’ s Pennsylvania office, represented the client. The Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on a clear liquid on the floor while shopping at a local supermarket. She alleged that the supermarket’ s negligent conduct caused the accident. She further alleged that due to the accident, her prosthetic knee became displaced, requiring her to undergo revision surgery. She also contended that the fall caused severe neck pain and subsequent spinal surgery.
During the trial, the jury viewed the supermarket CCTV footage, which confirmed the Plaintiff’ s accidental fall. The videotape clearly showed that the Plaintiff walked through the dairy section, lost her footing, and fell. The video did not show the clear liquid that allegedly caused the accident. The jury also considered the report from the supermarket’ s housekeeping program that showed that in the half-hour period before the plaintiff’ s fall, a store employee inspected the dairy aisle and determined that it was free of any hazard.
The defense did not dispute that the fall caused the Plaintiff’ s knee injury or the surgery to repair her prosthetic. The central issue was whether any supermarket employee acted negligently. The Plaintiff maintained that supermarket employees either caused the liquid to spill on the floor, or alternatively, should have known about any hazard.
The Plaintiff and her husband testified as part of Plaintiff’ s case. Plaintiff’ s husband described his wife’ s physical and emotional state when she returned home after the fall. On cross-examination, he admitted that his wife suffered from a medical condition that affected her central nervous system. He also admitted that his wife experienced fainting spells before and after the accident. The Plaintiff admitted that she did not report her accident to any supermarket employee. She explained that she was embarrassed, and just wanted to leave the store. The supermarket manager was able to establish that store employees followed all applicable housekeeping and accident reporting protocols.
Three medical doctors testified concerning the knee injury and surgery. Plaintiff’ s expert testified that the neck pain following the accident established that Plaintiff’ s upper spine was injured, and that cervical spine surgery was the only appropriate treatment. Countering that opinion, the defense’ s medical expert testified that the Plaintiff’ s neck pain and subsequent surgery were not a result of the accident. In addition to standard negligence instructions, the court explained to the jury that it must also determine damages, including whether the fall caused the Plaintiff’ s cervical surgery, in the event that it found that the defendant was liable.
The jury of eight people deliberated for approximately two hours before rendering a verdict in favor of the supermarket, determining that its conduct was not negligent.
